What is pseudoscience and how does it differ from science

This would mean that there is a set of features that are characteristic of science, but although every part of science will have some of these features, we should not expect any part of science to have all of them. Irzik and Nola proposed the use of this approach in science education. However, a multicriterial definition of science is not needed to justify a multicriterial account of how pseudoscience deviates from science.

Even if science can be characterized by a single defining characteristic, different pseudoscientific practices may deviate from science in widely divergent ways. Some forms of pseudoscience have as their main objective the promotion of a particular theory of their own, whereas others are driven by a desire to fight down some scientific theory or branch of science.

The former type of pseudoscience has been called pseudo-theory promotion , and the latter science denial ism Hansson Pseudo-theory promotion is exemplified by homeopathy, astrology, and ancient astronaut theories.

Williams Other forms of science denial are relativity theory denial, tobacco disease denial, hiv denialism, and vaccination denialism. Many forms of pseudoscience combine pseudo-theory promotion with science denialism. However, as practiced today, creationism has a strong focus on the repudiation of evolution, and it is therefore predominantly a form of science denialism. The most prominent difference between pseudo-theory promotion and science denial is their different attitudes to conflicts with established science.

Science denialism usually proceeds by producing false controversies with legitimate science, i. This is an old strategy, applied already in the s by relativity theory deniers Wazeck , — It has been much used by tobacco disease deniers sponsored by the tobacco industry Oreskes and Conway ; Dunlap and Jacques , and it is currently employed by climate science denialists Boykoff and Boykoff ; Boykoff However, whereas the fabrication of fake controversies is a standard tool in science denial, it is seldom if ever used in pseudo-theory promotion.

To the contrary, advocates of pseudosciences such as astrology and homeopathy tend to describe their theories as conformable to mainstream science. The term scepticism skepticism has at least three distinct usages that are relevant for the discussion on pseudoscience.

First, scepticism is a philosophical method that proceeds by casting doubt on claims usually taken to be trivially true, such as the existence of the external world. This has been, and still is, a highly useful method for investigating the justification of what we in practice consider to be certain beliefs. Secondly, criticism of pseudoscience is often called scepticism.

This is the term most commonly used by organisations devoted to the disclosure of pseudoscience. Thirdly, opposition to the scientific consensus in specific areas is sometimes called scepticism. Unwillingness to accept strongly supported factual statements is a traditional criterion of pseudoscience. See for instance item 5 on the list of seven criteria cited in Section 4.

It is particularly useful in relation to fact-finding practices that are not parts of science. Section 2. Generally speaking, conspiracy theories are theories according to which there exists some type of secret collusion for any type of purpose.

In practice, the term mostly refers to implausible such theories, used to explain social facts that have other, considerably more plausible explanations.

Many pseudosciences are connected with conspiracy theories. For instance, one of the difficulties facing anti-vaccinationists is that they have to explain the overwhelming consensus among medical experts that vaccines are efficient. This is often done by claims of a conspiracy:. Conspiracy theories have peculiar epistemic characteristics that contribute to their pervasiveness. Keeley In particular, they are often associated with a type of circular reasoning that allows evidence against the conspiracy to be interpreted as evidence for it.

Frankfurt used the term to describe a type of falsehood that does not amount to lying. A person who lies deliberately chooses not to tell the truth, whereas a person who utters bullshit is not interested in whether what s he says is true or false, only in its suitability for his or her purpose.

Epistemic relativism is a term with many meanings; the meaning most relevant in discussions on pseudoscience is denial of the common assumption that there is intersubjective truth in scientific matters, which scientists can and should try to approach. The distinction between science and pseudoscience has no obvious role in epistemic relativism.

Some academic epistemic relativists have actively contributed to the promotion of doctrines such as AIDS denial, vaccination denial, creationism, and climate science denial Hansson , Pennock However, the connection between epistemic relativism and pseudoscience is controversial.

Others have denied that epistemic relativism facilitates or encourages standpoints such as denial of anthropogenic climate change or other environmental problems Burningham and Cooper , This convergence of theoretically divergent demarcation criteria is a quite general phenomenon. Philosophers and other theoreticians of science differ widely in their views on what science is. Nevertheless, there is virtual unanimity in the community of knowledge disciplines on most particular issues of demarcation.

There is widespread agreement for instance that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences. There are a few points of controversy, for instance concerning the status of Freudian psychoanalysis, but the general picture is one of consensus rather than controversy in particular issues of demarcation. It is in a sense paradoxical that so much agreement has been reached in particular issues in spite of almost complete disagreement on the general criteria that these judgments should presumably be based upon.

This puzzle is a sure indication that there is still much important philosophical work to be done on the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. Philosophical reflection on pseudoscience has brought forth other interesting problem areas in addition to the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. Examples include related demarcations such as that between science and religion, the relationship between science and reliable non-scientific knowledge for instance everyday knowledge , the scope for justifiable simplifications in science education and popular science, the nature and justification of methodological naturalism in science Boudry et al , and the meaning or meaninglessness of the concept of a supernatural phenomenon.

Several of these problem areas have as yet not received much philosophical attention. The purpose of demarcations 2. Alternative demarcation criteria 4. Two forms of pseudo-science 6. Some related terms 6. The purpose of demarcations Demarcations of science from pseudoscience can be made for both theoretical and practical reasons Mahner , The demarcation issue is therefore important in practical applications such as the following: Climate policy : The scientific consensus on ongoing anthropogenic climate change leaves no room for reasonable doubt Cook et al.

Pennock Science education : The promoters of some pseudosciences notably creationism try to introduce their teachings in school curricula. Case 1 : A biochemist performs an experiment that she interprets as showing that a particular protein has an essential role in muscle contraction. There is a consensus among her colleagues that the result is a mere artefact, due to experimental error. Case 2 : A biochemist goes on performing one sloppy experiment after the other. She consistently interprets them as showing that a particular protein has a role in muscle contraction not accepted by other scientists.

Case 3 : A biochemist performs various sloppy experiments in different areas. One is the experiment referred to in case 1. Much of her work is of the same quality. She does not propagate any particular unorthodox theory. The following examples serve to illustrate the difference between the two definitions and also to clarify why clause 1 is needed: A creationist book gives a correct account of the structure of DNA.

An otherwise reliable chemistry book gives an incorrect account of the structure of DNA. A creationist book denies that the human species shares common ancestors with other primates. A preacher who denies that science can be trusted also denies that the human species shares common ancestors with other primates.

Alternative demarcation criteria Philosophical discussions on the demarcation of pseudoscience have usually focused on the normative issue, i. One such list reads as follows: Belief in authority : It is contended that some person or persons have a special ability to determine what is true or false. Others have to accept their judgments. Unrepeatable experiments : Reliance is put on experiments that cannot be repeated by others with the same outcome.

Handpicked examples : Handpicked examples are used although they are not representative of the general category that the investigation refers to. Unwillingness to test : A theory is not tested although it is possible to test it. Disregard of refuting information : Observations or experiments that conflict with a theory are neglected.

Built-in subterfuge : The testing of a theory is so arranged that the theory can only be confirmed, never disconfirmed, by the outcome. Explanations are abandoned without replacement. Tenable explanations are given up without being replaced, so that the new theory leaves much more unexplained than the previous one.

Two forms of pseudo-science Some forms of pseudoscience have as their main objective the promotion of a particular theory of their own, whereas others are driven by a desire to fight down some scientific theory or branch of science.

This is often done by claims of a conspiracy: At the heart of the anti-vaccine conspiracy movement [lies] the argument that large pharmaceutical companies and governments are covering up information about vaccines to meet their own sinister objectives. According to the most popular theories, pharmaceutical companies stand to make such healthy profits from vaccines that they bribe researchers to fake their data, cover up evidence of the harmful side effects of vaccines, and inflate statistics on vaccine efficacy.

Jolley and Douglas Conspiracy theories have peculiar epistemic characteristics that contribute to their pervasiveness. Bibliography Cited Works Agassi, Joseph, Baigrie, B.

Bartley III, W. Boykoff, M. Boykoff, Bunge, Mario, The Need for Reconstruction , Amherst, N. Burningham, K. Cooper, Buttel, Frederick H. Taylor, Carlson, Shawn, Cioffi, Frank, Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, et al. Culver, Roger and Ianna, Philip, Derksen, A. Dolby, R. Dunlap, Riley E. Jacques, Dutch, Steven I, Feleppa, Robert, Fernandez-Beanato, Damian, Frankfurt, Harry G. Fuller, Steve, Gardner, Martin, Gleberzon, William, Glymour, Clark and Stalker, Douglas, Grove , J.

Gruenberger, Fred J. Guldentops, Guy, Hansson, Sven Ove, Hoyninengen-Huene, Paul, The nature of science , Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jolley, Daniel, and Karen M. Douglas, Keeley, Brian L. Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science. Krystal, Arthur, Kuhn, Thomas S. La Salle: Open Court. Lakatos, Imre, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, et al. Langmuir, Irving, [] Laudan, Larry, If a person believes in something, is it because of the evidence or because he or she truly feels like it is the right answer.

Some will say that a belief in science is not the same as a belief in freewill. It is also debated whether the universe is or is not created in a cycle of cause and effect, which also lead to if science is real or accidental. A belief in science is a form of belief in freewill because an individual has the option to believe in science. The reason philosophers write truth statements this way is to give sense to the idea that a statement about the world could be wrong or, more accurately, false philosophers refer to the part in quotes as a statement or proposition.

Perhaps you can now see why beliefs are different than truth statements. When you believe something, you hold that or accept that a statement or proposition is true. The Rorschach test should not be used to diagnose mental illness because the test subject has the ability to alter the results, it takes a lot of time to interpret and learn how to interpret, and there are many doctors that are not. Some argue that it is against Christianity.

Nonetheless, holy books does not have an explicitly written text about genetic screening. The arguments are only constructed from implications of the holy texts. As the holy texts might hold many different meanings, who can know for sure, if genetic screening is just or unjust way?

As this topic is very complicated dilemma and needs a further debates to come to a common consensus, one should consider two outcomes: when it is morally accepted and when it is condemned as unethical thing to do. It has not been studied in depth such as medical science. I would also tell them that they should consider that science is focused on helping people to acquire a better understanding of the world.

Barry also uses questions to show the mysterious nature of scientific research. Barry asks several questions, but does not answer them. This shows that scientists must also ask a lot of questions, therefore showing how many unknown factors exist in.

Scientific thinking is distinguished from non-scientific thinking by its reliance on testable facts and evidence. Scientists are supposed to adhere to stipulated rules and principle in their inquiry and reporting.

Press releases, on the other hand, are not confined by any inquiry or reporting rules. Another example is the comic book artist turned pseudoscientist, Neal Adams, who is a proponent of the hollow or growing Earth idea. This is the notion that the planet Earth was much smaller in the historical past and has been slowly increasing in size over time, by the generation of new matter.

He believes this is true because the continents of the Earth fit together like puzzle pieces. We know that they do fit together to some extent because of plate tectonics, but he thinks they fit together all the way around because at one point in time they were all connected on a small Earth, which later expanded with the oceans filling in the cracks that emerged in between.

However, there are major scientific problems with this theory. Where is this new matter coming from? How is gravity increasing on the Earth? If all of the planets of the solar system were increasing, as he believes, how could their orbits be stable?

Each time one of these reasonable scientific objections is raised to this theory, he simply waves his hand and wipes away another discipline of science. He also adds spontaneous creation of matter from nothing. This is something that simply is unknown to physics. There is the generation of virtual pairs of particles, but then they immediately annihilate each other.

But the creation of new stable matter from nothing would violate the conservation of matter and energy, a very well-established law of physics. His growing Earth hypothesis would also violate much of what we know about from modern geology, plate tectonics, and volcanism, for example. Again, he would overturn virtually all of modern science that touches on his theories, to protect or defend his one idea that he does not want to surrender.

Learn more about the vital role that memories play in critical thinking. An excellent example of this is D. Palmer, the father of chiropractic. He based the principles of subluxation theory on a single case of the alleged curing of a deaf individual with neck manipulation. He then extrapolated from this all of chiropractic theory, at least the classic theory of subluxation, or the notion that there is a blockage in the flow of some essence or life force that he called innate intelligence.

This innate intelligence traveling through the spinal cord and the nerves is what keeps the organs and the parts of the body healthy. The blockage of that flow, therefore, causes illness, disease, and symptoms. He believed that he freed up the flow of this life energy in this patient, enabling them to hear and curing their deafness. At the time though, he was not aware that the nerves that subsume hearing in at no point pass through the neck. Another example is the founder of Iridology.

Iridology is the notion that the iris of the eyes reflects the health and disease of the whole body. This is based upon a general approach called the homunculus approach to diagnosis, the belief that the entire self is represented in one small part or piece of the body, in this case, the iris of the eye.

Principles may not be based on just a simple or a single observation, but on a philosophical idea, a philosophy that itself has not been empirically tested or developed as a scientific theory or discipline. Before having a thorough understanding of all of the physiology, anatomy, biochemistry, and the processes that go to make up a living organism, it was hypothesized that there must be some life energy that gives life to some things while others remain inanimate.

In the final analysis, it was really a placeholder, an argument from ignorance, if you will. Eventually, we were able, however, to explain all the processes of life, at least to a reasonable degree of detail and there simply was nothing left for life energy to do.